Refugees and Asylum Seeker 3 - Philosophical Issues
- Created by: Alasdair
- Created on: 10-12-17 15:43
View mindmap
- Refugees and Asylum Seeker 3 - Philosophical Issues
- Swamped
- Gives impression of being overwhelmed of refugees
- Connotations as Swamp is dirty
- However, we are swamped by other cultures on a daily basis
- American culture
- MacDonald's
- Halloween
- American films
- Therefore were are choosy about who/what we allow to enter our country
- American culture
- A threat to British way of life?
- Telegraph 25th November 2017
- "How to ensure that immigrants adopt "British values" is a problem the Government has thought long and hard about - but has not solved."
- British values are unclear and if they exist contradictory
- Surely if these values concerned justice and honour and doing the right thing, letting refugees in would constitute all three of these things
- Telegraph 25th November 2017
- Do we have any moral obligations?
- Example provided by Singer
- The baby drowning in the puddle is bad
- If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought, morally, to do it
- It is in our power to prevent something bad from happening [the baby drowning] without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought, morally, to save the baby
- Translating Singer's example to case of refugees
- Suffering and death of refugees is bad
- If it is in power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought, morally, to do it
- It is in our power to prevent something bad from happening [the suffering and death] without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought, morally, to prevent the suffering and death of refugees
- Example provided by Singer
- Open borders
- Do people have a right to migrate?
- Michael Hemmer
- 1. Immigration restrictions violate the prima facie rights of potential immigrants
- 2. There are no factors that override these rights
- Therefore, immigration restrictions are impermissible(the state should completely open the borders)
- Stopping someone coming into the UK can often cause serious harm
- People have a prima facie right not to be harmed
- A prima facie right that is capable of being neutralised or overridden (contrast absolute right)
- So, all things being equal, unless there is a good reason to restrict people then they have the right to come in
- So unless there is a good reason, you should not commit harmful coercion towards other people
- So this means the burden of proof is on the person who wants restrictions
- So unless there is a good reason, you should not commit harmful coercion towards other people
- So, all things being equal, unless there is a good reason to restrict people then they have the right to come in
- A prima facie right that is capable of being neutralised or overridden (contrast absolute right)
- It is certainly coercive, they used armed guards, etc.
- It is certainly harmful
- Worry
- Yes but government isn't causing that harm, the refugee's own countries are doing that
- Imagine someone is starving because their crops failed
- Even if you didn't cause the crops to fail, if you stop him from remedying the situation that is a harm
- But that is what the government is doing
- They are stopping people remedying the harm
- Clearly they didn't cause the bad things, but they prevented the person from remedying the situation
- Notice then that harmful coercion is violating immigrant's right
- Do people have a right to migrate?
- Immigrants stealing jobs
- Overwhelming amount of economists agree that immigrants benefit the economy
- Even if they didn't, does that justify harmful coercion?
- Imagine there is one job and I'm competing with someone for that job
- So I forcibly prevent someone from getting to the interview
- Have I done something wrong?
- So I forcibly prevent someone from getting to the interview
- But immigrants impose financial burdens
- For sake of argument, let's suppose there is no obligation to provide services
- Well, that doesn't mean we can violate the right not to be harmfully coerced because it can't be that we can prevent them from coming in so as to stop voluntary giving of goods
- Imagine the case again where you stop someone getting to the market place
- And someone asked why? And you say well I have the policy whereby I give people free food if they come to the market place, and I don't want to have to do this.
- Swamped
Comments
No comments have yet been made